Mr A Voronov v University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust — 2020

Mr Voronov applied in March 2019 for an IT Systems Developer role with University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust. He declared that he was 53 and gay, was shortlisted, scored 13 out of 16 in a technical test, and then scored 19 out of 45 at interview before Mr Hamer and Mr Gisborne. He alleged that his rejection in April 2019 was direct discrimination because of age, sexual orientation or nationality/race.

The tribunal accepted that the interviewers knew of Mr Voronov's protected characteristics and that some matters required careful scrutiny, including the appointment of an applicant with a lower overall score, brief score sheet comments, and a comment that he would not "fit in". It accepted Mr Hamer and Mr Gisborne's evidence that the rejection reflected their assessment of his interview performance, including their view that he interrupted, did not stay on point, and appeared to take a dim view of the Trust's systems. It concluded that the protected characteristics played no part in the decision, so the direct discrimination claims failed.

Mr Voronov also alleged harassment from score sheet comments describing him as "quite arrogant" and saying that he had "rambled" in his application form answer about Trust values. The tribunal found that the descriptions reflected genuine perceptions of his interview and application, and were not related to sexual orientation, nationality/race or age. It therefore dismissed the harassment claims, and also found that the same matters did not amount to direct discrimination.

For the June 2019 application, Mr Voronov alleged victimisation, relying on correspondence with Mr Treasure-Jones as protected acts. The tribunal did not decide whether the emails amounted to protected acts because it accepted Mr Cable's evidence that he was wholly unaware of those communications. It found the failure to shortlist was explained by information about the April interview, the recent rejection for employment, and the absence of experience in the particular area sought by the Trust, so the victimisation claim failed.

The Trust sought costs in relation to the victimisation claim. Applying rule 76 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013, the tribunal found that Mr Voronov had acted unreasonably in taking that claim forward, but declined to make a costs order because he had a genuine sense of grievance, there was an absence of bad faith, victimisation was relatively complicated, and he was unrepresented.